College and Research Libraries By FREMONT RIDER Progress in Microprint: Part I. Microcardsl-The Next Steps W HEN ONE is asked what, on the whole, has been the reception of the micro- card idea-whether librarians and scholars, generally speaking, have approved or_ dis- approved of it-the answer in brief must be that they have approved. To be more specific, however, the comments received have grouped themselves into three classes: I. Unquestioningly enthusiastic acceptance -"unquestioning" because it was an accep- tance unaware of the number of practical problems that have still to be solved before microcards can become a reality and of the extremely puzzling complexity of some of these problems. This sort of acceptance 'might be summarized in some such phraseology as: "Microcards sound wonderful; we'd like to buy some at once. When will they be ready?" 2. Understanding acceptance-"understand- ing" because, although often just as enthu- siastic as ''I," it was tempered with an appreciation of the difficulties mentioned, some- times so much tempered that it approached grave caution. This sort of acceptance might be summarized in some such phraseology as: "Although revolutionary, microcards do seem a most promising suggestion. We hope to sur- mount the serious difficulties involved." 3· Denial of acceptance-that is; a belief either that microcards are not realizable or, if realizable, that they would be valueless. So far, out of all of the hundreds of letters and reviews, just one has fallen into this class. 1 At its first session the Microcard Committee for- mally voted to approve library use of the word "microcard," which I proposed as the name of the new concept to which I applied it, viz., a standard size catalog card, having on its back a micro-text of the item cataloged on its front; but they recommended that its form, as I h_ad used it, be amended to one without a hyphen. ' SEPTEMBER~ 1945 The other outstanding fact about the reception of the microcard idea has been that, on the whole, scholars have been more enthusiastically in favor of it than librarians-perhaps, it is true, because they were less aware of the aforesaid difficulties. Of course all this encouragement has been of itself helpful, and when-as was often the case-it was conjoined with some prac- tical suggestion, it was doubly helpful. As was to be expected, there were, even in the favorable comments, scattered criticisms. First, and most common of all, has been one that was really based on a misreading of text of The Scholar and the Future of the Research Library. At least a half-dozen readers, who happened to be personally fa~ miliar with micro-techniques, were positive that five hundred pages of an ordinary book could not be gotten on the back of a catalog card. What happened here was that they were so dazzled by what the book said ought to be eventual future possibilities that they overlooked what it called the realizable present. This point was further discussed in College and Research Libraries (March I945, p. I80-8I). The Subject Heading Problem The criticism next in order of mention struck at the point where The Scholar ..• itself admitted that it was vulnerable, i.e.~ the suggestions which it made for microcard subject headings. Fortunately, since the 429 book came out, a novel and extremely valu- able suggestion on this point has been offered by members of the cataloging staff of the Library of Congress. Their suggestion in brief is: a. That all microcards have classified sub- ject headings, not alphabetical ones b. That the classified arrangement be ac- cording to either the Dewey Decimal or the Library of Congress classification, at the op- tion of each library c. That the subject approach be shown by the classification symbols of each classification, which are to be printed on every microcard, in the two upper corners-D.C. on the left, L.C. on the right d. That, on a line between the two, there be given a translation, in words, of the mean- ing of the symbols e. That, however, this translation line be an explanatory line only, without filing value, all filing being done, in classification order, by means of the symbols f. That all microcard-holding libraries be supplied with an alphabetical ''relative index" on cards, affording their users a key to the classification used, to aid them in finding their subject if they are unfamiliar with its classification position. At a recent meeting the Miciocard Com- mittee discussed this problem of the subject approach to microcards at great length. It unanimously approved the above Library of Congress solution, but at the same time it - \ pointed out that it needed a further modi- fication, or amplification, if microcard sub- ject headings were to be of practical value in those numerous places in every classifica- tion where a classification symbol alone is quite inadequate. (Biography is one such very obvious place; individual names of persons, places, or things under all the "other" or "9" headings in the Dewey Clas-:- sification are another example; the names of individual towns and cities under state or county symbols ~n geography and local history are still another.) So the committee added these two important additional para- graphs: g. In cases (as in biography, local history, geography, etc.) where the subject approach demands a specific proper name (or, in a few cases, a specific common noun), this specific name subhead shall be made an integral part of the subject heading, being placed between the two classification symbols, set in their type, and used as a definite part of each of them h. This proper name, subclassificational heading word is to be a filable part of the subject heading, all cards bearing such words to be arranged alphabetically under the sub- ject symbol of which they are a part. (The exp,lanatory, nonfiled phrase will also s_till appear on the sa~e line, but it will be set in a smaller, and quite different, type; and, in the case of these "compound" subject headings, it will follow the subclassification word.) Two sample microcards showing the pro- posed regular and "compound" classifica- tional subject heading forms appear on the following page. . There still remains the question as to how microcards are to be subfiled under any given subject heading, whether that heading be a regular or a compound one. It had been suggested in the committee's "agenda" that this subfiling under subject be, not by author (as is now customary), but by the date (year of publication) of the item. This was suggested for four reasons: ( 1) the date is generally easy to ascertain; ( 2) it is a symbol easy to indicate on the cards (possibly even as a suffix to the classi- fication symbols) ; C3) it is easy for users to understand and is brief; and, finally and most important of all, (4) it segregates the material under a given subject in accordance with ·its recency. But the members of the Microcard Com- mittee on the whole disagreed with this agenda suggestion; they considered it too sweeping. Although they recognized the value of a subfiling by date in the case of certain subjects, and in fact for many sub- jects, they felt that for other · subjects 430 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 923.573. Mitchell, William, 1879., Biography of UG633 LEVINE, IsAAc DoN, 1892- Mitchell, pioneer of air power ... New York, Duell, Sloan and Pearce [1943]. (viii p., 21., 420p. front., ports., 22cm.- rrMitchell's own writ- ings: p. 401-5) (2d of 4--p. 110-214) t(Only the significant and influential event~ of Mitchell's early. life ~re por- trayed, and the emphasis of the study is on his public life, with, howe·ver, more of his personal life and cbaracteristics than were give_n in Gauvreau and Cohen ... This is also more carefully organized and written than the earlier book." -A .L.A. Booklist. Wesleyan University Library 275.1 MICROCARO Trade Mark Missions- China HooGK~N, HENRY 'THEODORE, 1877- No. 8,916-12-26-44 BV3415 Living issues in China and the possible direction of their solution ... New York, Friendship press [1932]. (viii, 2l5p. double map. 19cm. -Reading . list: p~ [204}10.) ( l•t ol 2-p. i·viii. 1-961 Discusses China's government, educational system, social organization, eco- nomic conditions, health problems, international relations and religion, and h_ow Christian missionaries can help in solving her problems. Author, a medical mission- . ary in China, 1905-10, served ten years as .secretary of the Friends' Foreign Mission AssC)C. and seven as secretary of the National Christian Couhdl of China, travelihg throt,Igh China in its interests. He has written several books on religion, especially on its missionary aspect. VC! esleyan Universi.ty Libr3ry MICROCARD -Trade Mark _No. 10,762_._12-20-44 subfiling by author is more useful. They unanimously agreed, however-and this is very important-that this last con- clusion did not involve, for microcards, any necessity whatever for introducing Cutter author numbers into the classification sym- bols-simply because, as was pointed out in The Scholar ... , the Cutter numbers were originally worked out for call numbers, i.e.J for a shorthand device to letter on the back- strips of books. On microcards we do not need any such shorthand device, for we have the author's full name, given where it is immediately available, i.e.J on the line im- mediately below our subject classification line. We can, therefore, in the subject SEPTEMBERJ 1945 431 catalog, automatically subfile the entries by it. Eliminating all Cutter numbers saves work, renders the filing system clearer to users (who never do understand the Cutter symbolization), and renders uniformity in the entire subject approach easily possible. But subfiling by date was by no .means ruled out by the committee, and it is auto- matically available as an alternative, for the date of issuance is also shown in the catalog entry; and, to make it stand out and so . more easily usable in filing, if desired, the committee proposed to set it, like the subject heading, in boldface type. In other words, each library is given a considerable choice of subject filing arangements, but it is given all of them while using exactly the same microcards and using them without having to make any changes or additional markings. The Scholar ... Not Optimistic Enough A considerable number of correspondents and reviewers charged that The Scholar . .. gravely underestimated the importance of the microcard proposal and underestimated it in two quite different directions. On the one hand were those who insisted that it had said altogether too little about the possibilities offered for original publica~ tion in microcard form. It did, of course, refe.r to" these possibilities, and at some length ;2 but it is true that it concerned itself mostly with the microcarding of already printed material. Nevertheless, let me repeat here that I entirely agree that, for vast areas of ma- terial, original publication in microcard form is clearly indicated ; for in no other pos- sible way can the results of one's research be brought so easily and so cheaply to the attention of one's colleagues in one_, s subject field. Practically nothing is required for microcard publication except a clean typing 2 Rider, Fremont. Th e S cholar and the Future of the R ese arc h Library . New York City, Hadham Press, 1944, p, 204-05, 216-19. of one's article, pamphlet, book, or thesis- although, of course, the more carefully it is typed the better. Furthermore, photo- graphs, drawings, and graphs can be auto- matically included in one's microcard text, at ~o additional cost whatsoever. Finally, besides all these advantages at the author's end, there is, at the user's end, the fact that with microcards of hitherto unpublished material, . as with all other microcards, we have an item already fully and carefully cataloged, an item already bound and completely ready for an almost automatic filing and one which, when it has been filed, occupies little space. One finds that scholars are strongly inclined to see in this use of microcards one of the most in- triguing possibilities. Good-natured criticism of quite a differ- ent sort came from those numerous cor- respondents and reviewers who insisted that even the title of The Scholar and the Future of the Research Library was all wrong! They said that, in continually emphasizing the value of microcards to "research" li- braries, it slurred over even .a broader and more important field of usefulness for them. ln his well-phrased review in the A .L.A. Bulletin/ Clarence S. Paine, of Beloit Col- lege, phrases this criticism in these words: "There are ... more positive implications for the library of the small undergraduate college . . . [than for research . libraries]. There is little doubt that the microcard even more than microfilm presents an opportunity · for the small college to acquire vast amounts of original source materials-materials which are not now available to them." And Mr. Paine adds why it does: " ... if, by the adoption of . . . the microcard plan the smaller libraries can reduce the cataloging, binding, ·and storage costs . . . of research materials by more than 90 per cent, funds a Paine Clarence • S. "The Administrator's View- point." 'A .L.A. Bulletin 38:455-56, November 1944· 432 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES will be available for the purchase of a signi- ficant number of microcard titles." Other librarians of small colleges have seen the same point. They have seen the microcard's saving in first cost and ex- pensive research materials at last brought within their easy financial reach; but they have also seen the savings beyond the first cost (saving that microfilm-and micro- print in other than microcard form-did not, and could not, offer), i.e.~ the elimina- tion of cataloging cost and storage cost. I had not originally expected very heavy sales of The Scholar ... to small libraries; but hundreds of their librarians have bought it and are still buying it and, judg'ing from their resultant letters, have been reading it with avidity. Now their prevailing mood seems to be one of anticipation: "When will we be able to buy microcards ?" The Space-Saving Aspect of Microcards On the whole The Scholar ... tended, perhaps, to stress the space-saving advan- tages; Mr. Paine, on the other hand, stresses their savings in first cost. In discuss- ing their issuance and use over these last nine months I have come to the conclusion that it is their first-cost saving that, with most librarians, is going to be their primary appeal; and that their space-saving advan- tages, although admitted, will not immedi- ately be compelling enough to lead to action. In other words, I am inclined to think that librarians are not going-at least not in the near future-to buy microcards mainly to save shelf space. Eventually, if microcards fulfil their promise, they will do this, but not until space pressure occurs. This conclusion was brought home to me by a colloquy that developed at one of the sessions of the Microcard Committee. We were discussing certain specific titles and categories of material as samples which might be selected to initiate microcard publi- SEPTEMBER~ 1945 cation. In the course of the discussion, one of the members remarked: "We shall have to try, so far as we can, to see that the libraries select for microcarding only maJ terial that is going to be really used; other- wise, they may clutter us up with a lot of microcard junk." Now, from one point of view, this is a natural, reasonable, and justifiable comment. Particularly is· it justifiable when we are trying to start microcard development and to educate our library clientele in the prac- tical . use of microcards. But, if we look at our research library problem from a long-range standpoint, it can be very plausibly argued that exactly the reverse of this warning would be even more justifiable, viz., that ~uch-u'sed material is exactly the material that should not be microcarded, simply because, after all, in the. present state of our techniques at least, material is more easily usable in book than in microcard form. In other words, it is the seldom-used items that we ought to be microcarding, and this means much very common material. Why will microcarding eventually concentrate on this sort of ma- terial? Primarily to save the storage space that it now takes up in many libraries in its present book form. The best way to prove the point of this last paragraph is to cite a specific example. Take that classic two-volume standby, Stanley's In Darkest Africa~ the undispos- able leftover of ·practically every odd lot of I library duplicates! Not once in five years will anyone come along to take your copy off the shelves. In other words, here is a title that comes pretty closely to the "junk" cate- gory. Yet, can any real research library af- ford to throw it away entirely? Trivially common in money value though it is, little- used though it is, it still remains a great clas- sic of exploration and still may be referred to for information on African native life. It 433 I still has some biographical value and may even have some interest to an investigator into the aggressive publishing methods of the late Victorian period! No, we can't throw it away. Yet its two fairly fat volumes cost-at least they do on Wesleyan's shelves -nearly two cents a year just to keep and store. On the other hand, reduced to micro- card form (if and when it is out of copy- right, of course), In Darkest Africa would still be available to those few who wanted it and at a saving in storage cost which would, in a very few years indeed, fully amortize its microcard cost, leaving there- after practically no storage cost whatever. Possible Revisions of Filming Technique The phrasing used in The Scholar ... in referring to the two copies of a text required for microcard photographing seems · also to have been somewhat misleading. The Scholar ... said that these two copies were "of course destroyed" in this photo- graphing process and that therefore the "sponsoring" library supplying them would probably want to have ·a third copy so that at l~ast one library in the country-and this naturally the sponsoring library in the field -would have it available in its original book form to serve those researchers for whom microcard copies of it were, for some very special reason, not sufficient. It is true that, if we use the close-trim, spread-layout technique suggested in · The Scholar ... ~ the two copies used in micro- card photographing are "destroyed" as bound books. But it is also true that they can be reassembled again, ~fter photograph- ing, in the form of closely trimmed, but still textually intact, loose sheets, and that, if they are properly preserved in this form, they will still be usable by any researcher who wants the original book text. Also, of course, they constitute insurance in case remicrophotographing is necessary. Vernon D. Tate points out to me that the rubber cementing of the cropped pages, which was suggested in The Scholar .. ·~ involving, as it would, the necessity of re- moving the cement when the pages are re- assembled afterward, can be eliminated. He states that even now vacuum copy holders (keeping copy in place by pneumatic pres- sure) are available, large enough to take a considerable number of laid-out pages. This fact simplifies the whole process and greatly lessens the possibility of real book destruction-so much so that I now rather doubt the necessity of a sponsoring library's burdening itself with the cost, and the cost of storage, of a third copy. Since The Scholar ... appeared I have also done some further experimenting with the photographing of single copy, uncropped material. By using I 6mm., instead of 35mm., film, by running double-page "open- ings" lengthwise of the film instead of across it (so that the finished pages will read in correct order across the microcard) , by clos- ing up on "frames" so as to eliminate film waste on outside page margins, and then by stripping successive lengths of the resulting I 6mm. film lengthwise across the back of the microcard, I find it is easily possible to get about fifty ordinary bo'ok pages on one card. Fifty pages, in other words, by fol- lowing what might be termed "conven- tional" microphotographing methods, or at least methods which use only one copy of the text and do not destroy it at all. Of 1 course fifty pages are not one hundred pages, but in many cases the item being photo- graphed does not run to more than fifty pages, while, in many other cases, it may be a unique item, or at least one so valuable that the mutilation of it is out of the ques- tion. This conventional page-by-page pho- tographing technique is, of course, slower (so far as camera time is concerned), but the extra expense is more than offset in the case of expensive items by the saving in book cost. The present main objection to 434 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES cards made by this method is that, although perfectly readable, they look "messy."4 It ought, however, to be possible to eliminate this and, in any event, it is good to know that by this very slight modification indeed of our ordinary past photographic practice a fairly efficient-and, in many cases, an ade- quately efficient-use of our available· micro- card space can be obtained. Microcard Committee The next step in the practical develop- ment of the microcard concept was, The Scholar . .. . urged, the appointment of a representative committee of librarians which might advise concerning that de- velopment and coordinate it. In the initial work of securing the appointment of this. committee the sympathetic cooperation of Archibald MacLeish was inval~able, even though in the middle of it he was abruptly translated to a broader-but no librarian will admit a higher-sphere of usefulness. When he left the Library of Congress four members had already been appointed to the committee. Here is the complete Micro- card Committee as it was constituted when it held its first meetings in New York January 23, 24, and 25 last: Keyes D. Metcalf, director, Harvard Uni- versity Libraries, appointed by the Association of Research Libraries Paul North Rice, reference librarian, New York Public Library, appointed by the Amer- ican Library Association John W. Cronin, assistant director, Proces- sing Department, Library of Congress, ap- pointed by the Librarian of Congress Mrs. Winifred Gregory Gerould, formerly editor of the Union List of Serials, etc., ap- pointed by the Bibliographical Society of America Oliver W. Holmes, program adviser, N a- tiona! Archives, ·washington, D.C., appointed 4 Lt. Tate comments on this: "The 'messy' appear- a~ce. of the photographic microcard ca n probably be chmtnated by proper techniqu e, po ssibly in cluding the mountin g of the strips on a glas s pl a t e before the card is printed." SEPTEMBER, 1945 \ by the Archivist of the U.S. and the Society of American Archivists Frederick C. Hicks, librarian, Yale Law School Library, asked to serve as an unofficial representative of the professional library group Mary A. Bennett, supervisor, Binding De- partment and Photograph Division, Columbia University Libraries, appointed by the Special Libraries Association Charles F. Gosnell, librarian, Queens Col- lege Library, and associate in the School of Library Service, Columbia University, ap- pointed by the Association of College and . Reference Libraries Fremont Rider, librarian, Wesleyan U ni- versity Library. Vernon D. Tate, editor of the Journal of Documentary Reproduction, because he is at present in service, could not be an active member of the committee, but he was able to get leave and to sit in on all its meetings, so that it had the benefit of his invaluable experience in its discussions of technical phases of the microcard problem. Prior to its first meeting all members of the committee had been supplied with copies of some formidable agenda, and, although few of the items on it survived the commit- tee's three solid days of discussion in the form in which they appeared in it, most of them did manage to survive. Because of lack of time at this first meeting to cover so much ·ground, all that voluminous por- tion of the agenda dealing with the "division-of-fields" aspect of microcarding was postponed for later consideration. The committee did, however, in its first three days' meeting, accomplish a great deal. It formally organized itself, agreed as to the scope of its own duties, set limits to its powers and responsibilities, and outlined procedures to govern its sessions. It adopted carefully framed rules establishi·ng exact physical and bibliographical standards for microcards. It agreed on a subject heading code for . them. It set up a standardized microtext and . a standardized 435 printing format for the backs and fronts respectively. It drafted rules for microcard cataloging analysis. These were all ~ssential first steps if the · ideal is to become a reality to which we all look forward, viz., to have microcards which, regardless of their source, will be automatically interfilable. But the commit- tee, at its first meeting, did still more. For the larger part of two sessions, for example,_ it discussed the basic question: What ought to be the fundamental organization of microcard production? And, although here it did not attempt to lay down any specific rules or even to make any definite recommendations, it did adopt one very im- portant "expression of opinion" and it did greatly clarify the various problems involved in the minds of the committee's own mem- bers. To this aspect of the committee's initial deliberations I shall wish to devote the concluding portion of this paper. One fact about the committee's first meet- ing deserves comment. · In its three days it passed some forty-odd separate formal reso- · lutions. Practically every one of these reso- lutions, when it was first presented, met with a sharp barrage of criti~ism and pro- posed amendment. But throughout all the committee's meetings there was evident a sincere desire on the part of all its members to reach common ground, and the proof of this desire is that the committee found itself able to adopt all but three of its resolutions unanimous! y. It cannot be too often emphasized, how- ever, that the Microcard Committee deems itself an advisory one only. And, in con- sonance with this concept of its powers, when it shall . have finally approved its "Microcard Code," it proposes to have this printed in some form that will enable li- brarians everywhere to examine it, to com- ment upon it, and to criticize it. And the committee does not intend even to re.com- mend it as a code until the ~ifted result of all the various comments ·and criticisms it may receive have had its very careful i::onsideration. Patenting and Trade-Marking of Micro cards I feel I should make a word of personal comment on one action which was taken by the committee. The Scholar '· .. said :5 "Microcards are not patented. It is quite possible that no patent protection upon them could have been secured ; but, in any event, no effort was made to get any. · Because they are not protected by patent, the library world has no legal control of any sort over them. Anyone can make them, use them, buy them, sell them." But Lt. Tate pointed out, at one of the first sessions of the committee, that this complete lack of control in itself has dan- gers. As a matter of fact, he strongly urged that steps be taken to acquire some sort of protection for microcards and warned that my very desire not to attempt any personal control over their development gave unscrupulous commercial interests pos- sible opportunity to step in and, perhaps, to some degree at least, to deprive libraries of that control. In the discussion that fol- lowed it was made clear that, although this was not a possible danger from a patent standpoint (because the microcard idea had been definitely put in the public domain), it was still a possible danger so far as the coined word "microcard" was concerned. It was argued that someone might take this word, might apply it to some sort of a micro- print which was not a microcard at all, and might then _try to estop the library world from using it for microcards-causing con- fusion and trouble, if nothing more. The committee then asked me if I ob- jected to trademarking the term. I said "No," provided it was clearly understood r; Rider, op. cit., p. 190. 436 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES that I might assign the microcard trade- mark, if and when it was secured, to the committee, or to some other library body, for it to hold, in escrow as it were, for the good of the library world as a whole. With this understanding, trademark protection for "microcards" has been obtained. Centralization vs. Decentralization of Production When we ask, what is, from a library standpoint, the basic organization on which microcard production ought to proceed? we really seek answers to three main ques- tions: 1. Should the issuance of microcards be centralized or decentralized? 2. Should microcard issuance be carried on cooperatively (i.e., either by the libraries themselves or by a central agency, or agencies, working for them) or com- mercially (as book publishing is now being done) or both? 3. Should there be attempted some plan for world-wide interlibrary cooperation in microcard issuance (each country, for example, being held primarily responsible for its own publishing output) ; or should such a plan as this be dismissed as mere wishful thinking, as a pleasant dream in international comity, and should we, in place of it, lay out a plan for the United States alone to plunge ahead, as best it can, with the world as its microcard province, and burden? ·Now these three questions-and there are a number of subsidiary ones-are not theo- retical ones; they are intensely practical. We have available in microcards an entirely new publishing technique. As librarians we have, to a . very considerable degree, oppor- • tunity to say how .that technique shall be utilized. And so, now, before microcard development gets beyond our grasp, it would seem to be very much worth our collective while to study this problem of basic or- ganization and to endeavor to see which, out of all possible microcard publishing methods, SEPTEMBER, 1945 are most likely to serve our libraries and our scholars most efficiently. Nor does the "we" who should do this studying mean the Microcard Committee alone. It is the library world as a whole tha.t must, in the last analysis, do the de- ciding. . And meanwhile, before it even recomm~nds, the committee will most sin- cerely welcome all the light it can get from any source and any pertinent comment from an,y librarian who has given the above three questions thought. From the two lengthy sessions which the committee, at its recent first meeting, spent in the consideration of the first two of these three basic questions (the third, it will be remembered, was laid on the table) one resolution of significance emerged, of sig- nificance both in its scope and in the fact that it was unanimously adopted. It con- cerned the question of centralization vs. de- centralization of production. The Scholar ... , it will be remembered, said: There will be those who will believe that the publishing of microcards might be done most effectively by some sort of single great central organization. It is only, they will say, by such a centralized handling of the cata- loging, filming, printing, and distributing of them that it will be possible to secure that uniformity of format and subject headings, and that scholarly · adequacy, accuracy, and comprehensiveness that are admittedly essen- tial. The force of some of their arguments cannot be denied. But there are also diffi.! culties in the way of such a centralization, difficulties that would seem to be too real and too strong to be effectively overcome. The main one is this: behind every micro- card there must be, not merely an original copy-and in most cases several original copies -of the book copied; there must also be behind it, at the constant call of its makers, all its background literature, i.e., a library in its subject field. Every cataloger knows that, properly to catalog and abstract one book, it is often necessary to consult ten related books. In other words, before any c~ntralized micro- card publi_shing organization could even start 437 / to do its work it would have to build up for itself an enormous centralized library. And "enormous" would be no mere rhetorical phrase, for this organization would be pro- posing to reproduce by means of microcards the research materials of every subject field, every discipline, every profession, and every social interest. The building up of such a new library as this would be neither practicable nor practical. Instead of such a central microcard library and issuing agency, which would be bound, to a very great extent, to duplicate already exist- / ing library facilities, besides presenting politi- cal and administrative problems of the first order, it would seem better, from every angle, to decentralize the project and to build upon . ·the excellent foundations that already exist in our various research libraries .... 6 The three paragraphs above were quoted in the committee's agenda to furnish a starting point for its discussion. And, con- tinuing, the agenda said: ., When we attempt to analyze our basic problem we find that microcard production clearly separates itself into work upon four levels or stages, each one quite different in character from the others, and so involving its own special set of problems. Some of these levels seem to lend themselves to com- mercialization; some pretty clearly do not. With some, centralization of effort seems, theoretically a_t least, to be possible, or even desirable~ These four levels are: 1. The gathering tog eth er and the physical organization into what we call a library (or libraries) of the book, periodical, document, map, picture, music, and manuscript materials which are going to be subject to microcarding 2. The bibliographical organization of this mass of diverse materials, i.e., what we li- brarians term its cataloging (together with, in the case of microcards, its abstracting) 3· The making of microcards as a dual manu- facturing process, i.e., the printing of the microtext on ..the back of the cards (either pho- tographically or typographically, as the devel- opment of . the techniques involved and the material be1ng reproduced may dictate) and the printing of the catalog entry and abstract on their fronts. And, finally, 4· The distribution of these microcards to 6 Rider, op. cit., p, I 76-78. library (and possibly to other) subscribers, large and small, the country over, or, perhaps, the world over. This last is also, however, a dual process; it involves purely physical routines, such as card filing, sorting, "searching," packing, and shipping-routines which, although they are essentially simple, become complex as they grow in magnitude-and also "sell- ing," i.e., the securing of global subscribers to, or of individual purchasers for, the mi- crocards made. Of these four levels, 1 certainly, and 2 almost as certainly, do not invite commer- cial exploitation. In other words, com- mercialization appears likely only upon levels 3 and 4 and there probably only in certain fields such as law an'd medicine. But what of centralization? Theoreti- cally it is clearly possible for centralization of effort to begin at any one of these four levels. But what of practicality rather than theory? To clarify our thinking, let us see how far each of us can agree with the following tentative theses: a. Complete centralization of all microcard making at one point (i.e., beginning at level 1 and continuing through levels 2, 3, and 4) would unquestionably be ideal so far as as- surance of uniformity of result, surety of un- duplicated coverage, and net efficiency of operation are concerned. b. But such a completely centralized effort as this, no matter how relatively modest it might be at the start, would clearly have to envisage an ultimate capital investment run- ning -into a great· many millions of dollars and would involve wide areas of duplication in collecting with already established libraries c. Centralization beginning at level 2 • would enormously reduce the capital invest- ment required, would eliminate the dupli- cation in book collecting, and. would retain substantially all the advantages of centraliza- tion d. Even this much centralization would, however, necessitate an ultimate plant invest- ment running into millions and a staff run- ning into thousands. While, by American 438 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES business standards, such an operation would not be even importantly large, it would be, bibliographically speaking, quite unprecedented and would require the solution of a number of bibliographical and administrative problems of the most discouraging complexity7 e. If centralization of levels 2, 3, and 4 were ~ffected, the work of the cooperating libraries would be limited to sending in to the central agency two copies of all items to be microcarded. (Or one copy, as per com- ment above.) f. It would be possible to centralize levels 3 and 4 only, the cooperating libraries in this case cataloging and abstracting their items for microcarding, and sending in cataloging "copy" for them, along with their two copies (or one copy) of each item. It seems, how- ever, to be the general concensus among catalogers who have had experience in co- operative cataloging, that cataloging codes and rules alone, no ·matter how much they may be detailed, are not sufficient to effect the required degree of uniformity of bibliographi- cal result if cataloging has been done in many different places. On the other hand, they do seem to agree that this required degree of uniformity can be attained if there is at the central agency a relatively small cataloging staff to check and coordinate the cataloging copy received from these many sources g. It would be possible to centralize level 3 only, returning all cards made to the co- operating libraries for them to distribute. On the othe~ hand, libraries are not equipped to handle card distribution on a large scale, while any one ordering microcards would very much prefer to be able to send all orders to one distribution point rather than to a hun- dred points h. Centralization of level 3 (i.e., the physi- cal making, or manufacturing, of the cards) seems to meet with almost unanimous library approval. And this is easy to understand. A plant fully equipped to print both sides of microcards, operating on a commercial scale, would require a minimum investment of some- where between thirty and sixty thousand dol- lars and a staff of from ten to twenty per- sons. Few libraries have any desire to em- 1 The "divis ion-of-fields" portion alone of the com- mittee's a genda drafted about thirty rules charting a course throug h this one particular m a ze, and eve n these rules were admittedly only first steps for this portion. SEPTEMBER, 1945 bark upon so substantial an operation outs·ide of their usual routines. Furthermore, few of them could provide, of themselves, the micro- card output required to keep even a minimum- sized plant such as this busy. An even larger plant would enable mass production methods to be introduced, which would effect further significant economies. These eight theses summarize the discus- sions and the conclusions of the committee. As stated, at the end of them it unanimously adopted the resoluti~n reprinted . below. Although in the absence Df funds, this reso- lution may be criticized as a pi~us hope, it indicates the lines along which microcard· organization should, if possible, proceed. The sentiment of this committee is in agree- ment with the conclusion reached on page 5 of the agenda, viz., that centralization of microcard production upon level I, i.e., the accumulation of materials for microcarding in a single central agency, is neither desirable nor practicable. It believes, however, that the centralization of production upon levels 2, 3, and 4 (viz., cataloging, the physical making of the cards, and their distribution) is both practicable and desirable, if the funds necessary to finance such a centralization of effort can be obtained. It believes furthermore that such a centrali- zation of microcard production is cumulative- ly desirable, i.e., that it is most desirable at level 4, next most desirable at level 3, and next most desirable at level 2. The econo- mies in cost and the superior quality of serv- ice which centralization of production render possible are so significant and so substantial that we feel that, although any offer to pro- vide funds to initiate microcard production , even though it be on only an experimental scale, should be welcomed, funds sufficient in size to initiate fully centralized effort upon one, or all, of the three levels mentioned are particularly to be desired, and to be sought ' after. Admittedly all our present discussion is in the most tentative of general terms. It has to be. No one can set up, or recom- mend the setting up, of any sort of a micro- card 1ssmng organization without some 439 objective data to work with. Sooner or later the committee-and that means the library world-will, we hope, be faced with, and will be required to express its prefer- ence betw~n, definite microcarding propos- als which have been submitted to it. Some may involve only one level; some, possibly, may compass all four. Some may appear to be practical, some impractical. Some may be large, even grandiose; some of them small, even trivial. Some of them may be wholly philanthropic in motive, some of them frankly commercial. But only with such definite proposals at hand will definite rec- ommendations be possible. Crucial Point of the Issuing Problem In its "resolution above, the committee specifically states that it considers centrali- zation upon · level 4, i.e.~ microcard dis- tribution, even more desirable than card manufacturing centralization. · Its reasons have already been suggested, but let us examine them further for a moment. The Scholar ... urged that microcards be sold by "global" subscription only. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that this, however desirable, is impracticable. But, if we drop the global-sale-only idea, we have to face the necessity ~f building up enormous stocks of microcards (like the stock of the Card Division of the Library of Congress, for example) and the con- tinual "searching" of these stocks to fill individual card orders. Tliis sort of order work is highly specialized; it is the kind of operation in which large financial losses are easily possible ; and it is a sort of adminis- tration with which most librarians have had no experience. But there is another, and extremely im- portant, angle to the distribution process; for distribution, in its physical aspects, is, it will be remembered, but the first part of level 4· There is a second part, i.e·~ selling, the finding of markets for the cards made. Whatever it may be called, however it may be disguised, selling is an unescapable part of the microcard issuing process. Unless adequate numbers of purchasers for all the microcards made are found, any production organization we may set up is going to \ . collapse very quickly. This point was brought up in one of the Microcard Com- mittee's sessions, but it was brought up toward the end and did not receive the discussion its importance deserved. Unless I am mistaken, it is at this very point that we are going to find among li- braries the greatest reluctance to assume responsibility. Or, to put the same state- ment the other way round, we are going to find at this point the most eager, and most nearly unanimous, willingness among them to have some central organization take over the administrative burden of producing microcards. But it will require only a short considera- tion to reveal quite clearly that,• just because this selling process is so crucial a one, any centralization of it is bound to work a far- reaching change in the entire microcarding setup. Why? Because he who is made financially responsible for seeing that sales are made is inevitably going to insist upon having the power to decide what the pro- ducts are that are placed in his hands for sale. But if the choosing of the items which are to be microcarded is transferred to a "microcarding center," our basic situation is altered. If it is going to ask the coop- erating libraries for the items that it wants to microcard, instead of their sending to it the items which they want to have micro- carded, the central agency is forthwith no longer a service agency but a "publishing" -an initiating and risk-taking-body. The difference is at once a profound and an un- escapable one. 440 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES